Twenty two million pixels is the ideal number for theCanon EOS 5D Mark III, Canon has said in response to questions why it doesn’t closer match the 36-million-pixel sensor of the Nikon D800.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark III has only one megapixel more than its predecessor, the 5D Mark II, which has led some to question whether the new Canon camera is enough of an upgrade.

Speaking to our sister website TechRadar, Canon UK’s David Parry said he believes that 22 megapixels is enough, adding education needs to be done to convince consumers of that.

“I think there’s difficulty with having higher megapixel counts. What we tried to do is create a camera that’s good for all types of photography,” he told TechRadar.

“We feel that this is an ideal number for this type of camera, if you’re a journalist or sports photographer, you need to get the images off the camera quickly, and they need to be as sharp as they can be.

“It’s OK [higher megapixel counts] for studio photographers, but that’s not who we envisage using this camera,” he added.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is currently the highest resolution DSLR available in the EOS range, which is outgunned by the Nikon D800, which is the world’s highest resolution full-frame DSLR.

To see more of Parry’s comments, read the full interview on TechRadar.

Twenty two million pixels is the ideal number for theCanon EOS 5D Mark III, Canon has said in response to questions why it doesn’t closer match the 36-million-pixel sensor of the Nikon D800.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark III has only one megapixel more than its predecessor, the 5D Mark II, which has led some to question whether the new Canon camera is enough of an upgrade.

Speaking to our sister website TechRadar, Canon UK’s David Parry said he believes that 22 megapixels is enough, adding education needs to be done to convince consumers of that.

“I think there’s difficulty with having higher megapixel counts. What we tried to do is create a camera that’s good for all types of photography,” he told TechRadar.

“We feel that this is an ideal number for this type of camera, if you’re a journalist or sports photographer, you need to get the images off the camera quickly, and they need to be as sharp as they can be.

“It’s OK [higher megapixel counts] for studio photographers, but that’s not who we envisage using this camera,” he added.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is currently the highest resolution DSLR available in the EOS range, which is outgunned by the Nikon D800, which is the world’s highest resolution full-frame DSLR.

To see more of Parry’s comments, read the full interview on TechRadar.

Posted on Monday, March 5th, 2012 at 9:30 am

This article parallels my thoughts and experience almost to the letter.

When the original 1Ds came out in 2003 it WAS the megapixel monster...11.4 megapixels! Whoa! Respected independent reviewers gushed; "You can produce ANYTHING with the massive files from this camera..."

When the 1Ds3 shipped in 2007 it was the undisputed megapixel monster...21.1 megapixels!! The reviewers gushed. OMG who needs all this headroom? It was expensive but worth every penny for the amazing 1-series build and mind numbing 21.1 megapixels. This was the ultimate. Then less than a year later the 5DII shipped with 21.1 megapixels at a very realistic price. The future was here. Canon had delivered.

Fast forward from September 17, 2008 when the 5DII was announced to March 2, 2012, the 5DIII announcement day. Only 22 megapixels? Awww! But how many photographers actually genuinely NEED an even bigger megapixel monster? Some do. My very demanding professional needs are mostly met by a 16.1 megapixel 1DIV, with occasional 5DII use for that little bit more.

There are photographers who genuinely need a 35-45 megapixel camera, and cannot justify the huge $$ leap to medium format. I'd be surprised if Canon didn't deliver for the goods this year for these photographers and also for the few high appetite enthusiast pixel peepers. Look out though! If Canon responded to every call for more megapixels we could end up with the camera equivalent of the ultimate automotive bloater, the Hummer.

The future is certain to trend differently but right now for the great majority, 22 megapixels is a highly practical sweet spot.

jmeyer | News | 05/03/2012 09:30am“It’s OK [higher megapixel counts] for studio photographers, but that’s not who we envisage using this camera,” he added.Posted on Monday, March 5th, 2012 at 9:30 am

Given that Parry has made this comment, I would be very, very surprised if canon does not have a high-megapixel, studio monster within the next 12 months.What a fantastic period this is.

I've been thinking the same for a while - horses for courses. With the Olympics mid-year, it makes sense that the "sports/action" camera received greater priority. The "studio/landscape" monster megapixel camera may follow, and rumours have been around for a potential Photokina announcement for that. Time will tell if Canon will respond "directly" to the D800 in the megapixel race.

I suppose the next question is though - what will the studio/landscape target market expect? If Canon made a 46MP, 9-19 point AF, and 3-5fps camera at US$3500, would this meet expectations or will people be disappointed given the new 5D3 specs?

PhilDrinkwater

Not being Canon vs. non Canon, but I agree. For the majority of photographers, 22MP is enough:* Weddings / Events* Sports* Portraiture* ...

The areas which seem to need more are landscape (if you print fine art at large sizes), architecture and some studio photographers - although I do a lot of studio and have NEVER been let down on resolution so it depends what your end result needs to be.

I think it's a gutsy move from Canon although it seems it may have been partly video related (the resolution is 3xHD resolution).

I just hope that people understand that more is not necessarily better.

Twenty two million pixels is the ideal number for theCanon EOS 5D Mark III, Canon has said in response to questions why it doesn’t closer match the 36-million-pixel sensor of the Nikon D800.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark III has only one megapixel more than its predecessor, the 5D Mark II, which has led some to question whether the new Canon camera is enough of an upgrade.

Speaking to our sister website TechRadar, Canon UK’s David Parry said he believes that 22 megapixels is enough, adding education needs to be done to convince consumers of that.

“I think there’s difficulty with having higher megapixel counts. What we tried to do is create a camera that’s good for all types of photography,” he told TechRadar.

“We feel that this is an ideal number for this type of camera, if you’re a journalist or sports photographer, you need to get the images off the camera quickly, and they need to be as sharp as they can be.

“It’s OK [higher megapixel counts] for studio photographers, but that’s not who we envisage using this camera,” he added.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark III is currently the highest resolution DSLR available in the EOS range, which is outgunned by the Nikon D800, which is the world’s highest resolution full-frame DSLR.

To see more of Parry’s comments, read the full interview on TechRadar.

Posted on Monday, March 5th, 2012 at 9:30 am

This article parallels my thoughts and experience almost to the letter.

When the original 1Ds came out in 2003 it WAS the megapixel monster...11.4 megapixels! Whoa! Respected independent reviewers gushed; "You can produce ANYTHING with the massive files from this camera..."

When the 1Ds3 shipped in 2007 it was the undisputed megapixel monster...21.1 megapixels!! The reviewers gushed. OMG who needs all this headroom? It was expensive but worth every penny for the amazing 1-series build and mind numbing 21.1 megapixels. This was the ultimate. Then less than a year later the 5DII shipped with 21.1 megapixels at a very realistic price. The future was here. Canon had delivered.

Fast forward from September 17, 2008 when the 5DII was announced to March 2, 2012, the 5DIII announcement day. Only 22 megapixels? Awww! But how many photographers actually genuinely NEED an even bigger megapixel monster? Some do. My very demanding professional needs are mostly met by a 16.1 megapixel 1DIV, with occasional 5DII use for that little bit more.

There are photographers who genuinely need a 35-45 megapixel camera, and cannot justify the huge $$ leap to medium format. I'd be surprised if Canon didn't deliver for the goods this year for these photographers and also for the few high appetite enthusiast pixel peepers. Look out though! If Canon responded to every call for more megapixels we could end up with the camera equivalent of the ultimate automotive bloater, the Hummer.

The future is certain to trend differently but right now for the great majority, 22 megapixels is a highly practical sweet spot.

Despite some excessive marketing spin in his attempt to sell the product, I don't disagree in general with what's said. You can't expect them to say anything else anyway. They're hardly going to release a camera and then say, it's not what they wanted to do but did it anyway.

But I'm coming from a 7D and want a FF camera. I only have a few lenses so far, so I'm not to much invested in canon as some of you. What I don't like is the Photo's so far coming from canon, they're very soft. I want canon or someone to release some real photos. I know canon has always sucked @ placing good jpeg's on their product web pages. And it seems they aren't hearing us or listening @ this point on the web to help us see the 5D potential. It's like they kind of think they have us in a corner and it really doesn't matter, once you’ll have the camera in your hands you'll love it. $3500.00 is a lot and I have one on pre-order through B&H just 10 min after mid-night, the night it was release. I was planning on buying another 2 lenses within 90 days which is another $4000.70-200 II is 2.8EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

They got me hooked lol, but every day I see canon not responding, I fear more everyday, that something isn't right. Are we on the titanic, the boat that was so built not to sink, that it sank on it first voyage?

bottom line is that 22MP won't be enough for a lot of people even if it is good enough for a lot of people, and even if it is sufficient for most people. The 5DmkIV will increase the pixel count contrary to all the argument that it is enough. That's just how technology is. Always more, always inproving, and people will always think they need more even if they don't.

Quote

(1) Consider that Canon said this camera will be the best DSLR for video. I'm pretty sure that is a significant statement for them to make and the camera's sensor plays a large part in that.(2) As the sensor resolution goes up, the requirements for shutter speed increase so as to counteract the problems associated with image blur on the sensor. At 21-22MP, it is on the cusp of becoming difficult to manage. I'm kind of looking forward to the Nikon fan bois posting 100% crops from their D800 with a 50mm lens and requiring 1/200 to get a non-blurry picture when hand held and the screams associated with that.

I think this is more a discussion about still photography than video. there are better video cameras with interchangeable lenses out there for the big video crowd, even from canon. 1080 is nothing resolution wise. The still photographer's definition of image quality is lightyears beyond the compressed video output of the 5DIII.

You're correct that technique will matter more with higher MP sensors. I don't think it is a bad thing. It just means you have to be mindful of it. Telephoto lenses require more technique and skill than wide angle lenses as any camera motion is amplified. Yet people don't stop using telephotos because of that. worrying about pixel level microblur at 100% crops of 36.3 MP is pointless. The image itself won't look worse when printed as if it was 22MP at the same final size. So there is no advantage to less resolution whereas you defintively can get more detail whenever you don't mess up.

Quote

Despite some excessive marketing spin in his attempt to sell the product, I don't disagree in general with what's said. You can't expect them to say anything else anyway. They're hardly going to release a camera and then say, it's not what they wanted to do but did it anyway.

exactly. marketing spin. they aren't going to admit they are being labeled as stuck in 20MPs and will try to argue their choice is the best. what else can they do!

I'm kind of looking forward to the Nikon fan bois posting 100% crops from their D800 with a 50mm lens and requiring 1/200 to get a non-blurry picture when hand held and the screams associated with that.

This point is overblown. The D800 has an anti-vibration mechanism built into the shutter to reduce blur. If Nikon didn't point out the potential effects of blur as a consequence of pixel density in their literature, I wonder how many Canon fan boys would even bring it up? The funny thing is, if someone were to actually read that same piece of literature, they'd realize that when using the D800 in Auto ISO, it selects a minimum shutter speed equivalent to the reciprocal of the focal length.

In other words, even for those that rely on a monkey mode like Auto ISO, Nikon feels they have enough skill to steadily hand-hold a camera using one of the oldest and most elementary rules of photography: minimum shutter speed = 1/focal length.

I think 22 MP is enough to satisfy probably 90% of all canon 5d users or those coming up from crop cameras... There obviously will be the remaining 10% give or take that may need more, and while i'm not personally saying there isn't a market for a high MP monster, I think they are weighing heavily in sales figures and general feedback to determine if/when they drop a big MP camera out on the market.

I think there's definitely validity in the "22mp is enough for the target users" argument. If 22 is too little for you, chances are you're not who this camera is for, and I'd assume that a market leader like Canon has done enough market research to know what a sizeable chunk of their users WILL want this camera and will see healthy sales.

Take my own example - I'm making reasonable money using an ancient 40D to do events work. This week I delivered some shots to a company who I know will just use these images in newsletters and online. Megapixels are utterly irrelevant in this fairly typical situation - indeed, the client prefers smaller jpgs than the 10MP 40D produces just for ease of sharing and sending!

Where I am losing out is in low light performance - losing shots due to poor ISO quality or to camera shake from longer than ideal exposure times, means my keeper rate is pretty lame. That's why I was holding out for a new (ideally full frame) EOS before upgrading, so a mkIII that promises to improve these qualities over its highly respected predecessor is definitely what I'd like to see.

I'm no pro, but being a freshman this coming summer, 22 megapickles is definitely enough for me.

I have been saving up for a full frame for a while, and whilst 5D2 is a bargain, my experience with 7D's AF and made me pretty sure that 5D2's isn't enough. So basically my wishlist was a 5D with a better AF, which is answered with the 5D3.

Now, why is this enough (or even ideal) for me? I will be stepping up from a 500D, which has 15 megapickles. I have no problem with it, so I doubt I'll have problem with a few extra pickles. On the other hand, D800 has too much for me, my laptop and my hard drive to handle. Note that I will be a college student, which means I do not have access to powerful processing desktops. Not to mention it will be a big selling point, thus making the price tag even heftier.

5dmk.iii

Trying to optimize resolution vs diffraction and noise, with current technology it seems that 16-24mp is the sweet spot for FF sensors.

Canon could have released a 45mp monster, but ISO/ speed would have been compromised. I do agree that they might release a slow MP monster in Tandem later on if the demand presents itself... it should have better noise/DR than the 7D despite mirroring it's pixel density... thats not to shappby.